Mason's explanation; but, if it was superfluous, how much less edifying must it be with such an additional comment! Again, under the line Enjoying one that but to me 's a Dian, we find, Djan, a contraction for Diana. M. Mafon. And so it is!* Vol. I. p. 315. We may adduce another instance from the Virgin Martyr. As angels were no part of the Pagan theology, this fhould certainly be augel, from the Italian augello, which means a bird, M. Mafon. It were to be wifhed that critics would fometimes apply to themselves the advice which Gonneril gives to poor old Leer; I pray you, father, being weak, seem fo; we fhould not then find fo many certainties. ` la Mandeville, the barbarous Herodotus of a barbarous age, there is an account of a people (probably the remains of the old Guebres) who expofed the dead bodies of their parents to the fowles of the air. They referved however the fculls, of which he says the fon letethe make a cuppe, and thereof drynkethe he with gret devocioun, in remembraunce of the holy man that the aungeles of God han eten. By this expreffion (fays Mr Hole) Mandeville poffibly meant to infinuate that they were confidered as facred meffengers. No, furely; aungeles of God was fy. nonymous in Mandeville's vocabulary to fowles of the air. Vol. L p. 36. We believe that many of our readers will disagree with that assertion, and think the harsh assurance of one editor nearly as objectionable as the quiet certainty of the other. Instances are however adduced, which prove Mr Mason's correction to have been unnecessary and improper: and, indeed, throughout the whole work, Mr Gifford deserves great commendation for restoring the text which had been injudiciously altered. Sometimes, however, his animosity against Mr Mason has induced him to reject scornfully his suggestions, though not devoid of ingenuity. For example in the Duke of Milan. "To fee those chuffs, that every day may spend A foldier's entertainment for a year, Yet make a third meal of a bunch of raifins. " So all the old copies, and fo indeed Coxeter's; but Mr Mafon, whofe fagacity nothing efcapes, detected the poet's blunder, and for third fuggefted, nay, actually printed thin." This paffage (quoth he) appears to be erroneous: the making a third meal of raifins, if they had made two good meals before, would be no proof of penurioufnefs."-Seriously, was ever alteration fo capricious? Was ever reasoning fo ab furd? Where is it faid that thefe chuffs had made two good meals before? Is not the whole tendency of the fpeech to fhow that they starved themselves in the midft of abundance? I. p. 279. It is so undoubtedly; and, on that very account, did Mr Mason object to third; because, though perhaps not two good meals, it did imply that they had made two before, and that would not be much like starvation. The alteration is ingenious, and makes the sentence the Duke's army, discouraged by defeat, and reduced to less than 4000 men, of which not above twelve hundred were effective He gave battle in a fit of desperation, and was slain. J'ay entendu par ceux qui le penfoient fcavoir, qu'ils n'avoient point en l'oft quatre mille hommes; dont il n'y avoit que douze cens en eftat pour combattre. Le duc choifit le pire, non obftant toutes les remonftrances qu'on lui avoit faites du grand nombre des Alemans, qui eftoit avec ledit Duc de Lorraine, et auffi de l'armée du Roi, logée près de lui; et conclud la bataille, avec ce petit nombre de gens eponventez qu'il avoit. ' We have dwelt upon this note, because we are always anxious to maintain historical truth; and because we cannot better exemplify the haste and inaccuracy with which Mr Gifford sometimes appears to write. It seems, from a note in vol. 4. p. 167, that he must have printed the first volumes, before he had even read through the author he was editing. This expreffion reconciles me to a paffage in the Parliament of Love, vol. 2. p. 291, of which, though copied with my beft care, I was extremely doubtful. It now appears, that Maflinger ufes candour, in both places, as fynonymous with honour.' We are far from wishing to reproach Mr Gifford with mistakes, to which men of genius, who write from recollection, are frequently liable; but it is our duty to repeat, and to urge strongly for his consideration in future, that those who can trespass on the public with such inaccuracies, should be very careful not to attack those who have preceded them with bitterness of language and harsh reprehension. Indeed, in some passages, Mr Gifford appears to have been irritated by so strong a spirit of impatience and anger against Coxeter and Mason, that we are inclined to think, if either of those unfortunate editors had been within his reach, he might have closed his arguments like George a Greene, in an anonymous old play, And for greater proof Give my man leave to fetch for me my staff; From almost every page in Mr Gifford's edition, it appears, that his constant aim has not been simply to rectify what was inaccurate, to cast aside what was superfluous, and to add what might be necessary or useful for the information of the reader, but to build his own reputation on the ruin of that of his predecessors. This object is pursued with such assiduity, that he frequently falls into the very error which he would reprobate in them. For instance, in the Duke of Milan, we find this note. 'Scarabs, means beetles. M. Mafon. Very true; and beetles means fcarabs.' Vol. I. p. 279. Some unlearned readers might perhaps be thankful for Mr Mason's G4 Mason's explanation; but, if it was superfluous, how much less edifying must it be with such an additional comment! Again, under the line Enjoying one that but to me 's a Dian, we find, Dian, a contraction for Diana. M. Mafon. And fo it is! Vol. I. p. 315. We may adduce another instance from the Virgin Martyr. As angels were no part of the Pagan theology, this fhould certainly be augel, from the Italian augello, which means a bird, M. Mafon. It were to be wifhed that critics would fometimes apply to themselves the advice which Gonneril gives to poor old Leer; I pray you, father, being weak, feem fo; we fhould not then find fo many certainties. '—' In Mandeville, the barbarous Herodotus of a barbarous age, there is an account of a people (probably the remains of the old Guebres) who exposed the dead bodies of their parents to the fowles of the air. They referved however the fculls, of which he says the fon⚫letethe make a cuppe, and thereof drynkethe he witt. gret devocioun, in remembraunce of the holy man that the aungeles of God han eten. By this expreffion (fays Mr Hole) Mandeville poffibly meant to infinuate that they were confidered as facred meffengers. No, furely; aungeles of God was fy. nonymous in Mandeville's vocabulary to fowles of the air. ' Vol. I, P. 36. We believe that many of our readers will disagree with that assertion, and think the harsh assurance of one editor nearly as objectionable as the quiet certainty of the other. Instances are however adduced, which prove Mr Mason's correction to have been unnecessary and improper; and, indeed, throughout the whole work, Mr Gifford deserves great commendation for restoring the text which had been injudiciously altered. Sometimes, however, his animosity against Mr Mason has induced him to reject scornfully his suggestions, though not devoid of ingenuity. For example in the Duke of Milan. "To fee thofe chuffs, that every day may spend A foldier's entertainment for a year, Yet make a third meal of a bunch of raisins." So all the old copies, and fo indeed Coxeter's; but Mr Mafon, whofe fagacity nothing efcapes, detected the poet's blunder, and for third fuggefted, nay, actually printed thin." This paffage (quoth he) appears to be erroneous: the making a third meal of raifins, if they had made two good meals before, would be no proof of penuriousnefs."-Seriously, was ever alteration fo capricious? Was ever reasoning fo abfurd? Where is it faid that these chuffs had made two good meals before? Is not the whole tendency of the fpeech to fhow that they tarved themselves in the midst of abundance?' I. p. 279. It is so undoubtedly; and, on that very account, did Mr Mason object to third; because, though perhaps not two good meals, it did imply that they had made two before, and that would not be much like starvation. The alteration is ingenious, and makes the sentence sentence clearer. If third is the genuine reading, it may perhaps mean principal, considering the third meal as the most important. With respect to the word chuff, Mr Gifford says, it is always used in a bad sense, and means a coarse unmannerly clown, at once sordid and wealthy.' That is a mistaken interpretation; the word, if ever, has not always that signification. In Decker's Hon. Wh. Fustigo says, Troth, sister, I heard you were married to a very rich chuff. Viola. I am married to a man that has wealth enough and wit enough. Fustigo. A linendraper, I was told, sister. Viola. Very true, a grave citizen. I want nothing that a wife can wish from a husband.'-Afterwards, speake of him, Pioratto says, He, according to the mildness of his breast, entertained the lords, and with courtly discourse beguiled the time as much as a citizen might do.' We believe that the word has much more affinity to citizen than to clown. In the Bondman (Scene I.) we find a proper interpretation of Mason's rejected with scorn as unintelligible. "He's a man of strange and reserv❜o parts, Strange here fignifies diftant. M. Mafon. I do not pretend to know the meaning of diftant parts. Maffinger, however, is clear enough. Strange and referved in his language, is ftrangely (i. e. fingu. larly) referved.' II. p. 8. If Mr Gifford had found leisure even to open Johnson's Dictionary, (though a phrase so common ought perhaps to have been familiar to him), he would have seen under the word strangeness, that explanation which he could not pretend to furnish; (viz. ' uncommunicativeness, distance of behaviour; remoteness from common manners or notions, uncouthness.") And he might have read sundry quotations from Shakespeare, which we think it un necessary to cite, for the purpose of showing that Mason's interpretation, though perhaps superfluous, was perfectly accurate. Mr Gifford's irritation against the former editors, displays itself curiously in his note to a line in the Renegado; where, by an improper alteration of caroch into coach, the metre had been disturbed. If the reader would have a specimen of what can be done by a nice ear in editing an ancient poet, let him caft an eye on this line, as it ftands in Coxeter and Mafon, Her footmen, ber coach, her ufhers, her pages. Tumtiti, tumtiti,' &c. II. p. 133. As Ennius has used taratantara' for the sound of a trumpet, Mr Gifford may perhaps be justified for expressing by tumtiti, his sense of the error committed by the editors of Massinger. But looking upon this as a natural and involuntary exclamation, which had been forced from him by the exquisite sensibility of his ear, we were surprised at discovering that the gentlemen, who have been been thus rebuked, might in other passages retort the 'tumtiti' upon Mr Gifford with equal propriety. We will cite an instance from the City Madam, in Mr Gifford's edition. Hoyft. I now repent I ever Intended to be honell. (Enter Luke) Serj. Here he comes You had beft tell fo. For. Worshipful Sir, You come in time to free us from these bandogs.' To which we find the following note • Mr Mason reads, " Here he comes; You had best him tell fo.” His falfe pointing, made his barbarous interpolation neceffary. The old copy is evidently right. IV. p. 85. Mr Mason made the interpolation solely for the purpose of supporting metre which was defective; and Mr Gifford's metrical sensibility must have quite deserted him, when he asserted that a dramatic verse hobbling with only nine syllables, was evidently right. There is undoubtedly an error in the passage; for Massinger is never deficient in his metre, which was very artificial; and, in his comedies, is particularly superabundant in unaccented syllables; but Mr Mason's interpolation is by no means satisfactory. The inversion is harsh, and does not accord with the author's style; and the words Here he comes, cannot stand well without a reference. Perhaps Massinger had written, Here he comes that you had best tell so.' In the very next scene, we find Here he comes that can best resolve you. We will produce from the same play a passage in which Mr Gifford has been guilty of an interpolation not less objectionable and more injurious to the sense; imagining that a foot was wanting to make the metre perfect, which does not appear to be the case. "Secret. Dead doings, daughter. Shav. Doings! fufferings, mother: A foot is loft in the original. I have fubftituted the words between brackets, in the hope of restoring the fenfe of the paffage.' IV. 49 The sense, which was by no means dubious, is rather injured by the interpolation; and the construction is not improved by connecting the sentence with the foregoing exclamation. Á simple attention in the division of the lines would have rectified the metre. Doings? Sufferings! Mother, men have forgot what doing is. Mr |